[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-rosen-mpls-explicit-null) 00 01 02 RFC 4182

Network Working Group                                      Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: September 2004
Updates RFC 3032


                                                              March 2004



        Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL



                  draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract


   The label stack encoding for MPLS (Multi-protocol Label Switching)
   defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL" and a
   reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL".  Previously,
   these labels were only legal when they occurred at the bottom of the
   MPLS label stack.  This restriction is now removed, so that these
   label values may legally occur anywhere in the stack.











Rosen                                                           [Page 1]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004





Contents


    1        Introduction  .........................................   2
    2        Detail of Change  .....................................   2
    3        Reasons for Change  ...................................   4
    4        Acknowledgments  ......................................   5
    5        Normative References  .................................   5
    6        Informative References  ...............................   5
    7        Author's Address  .....................................   6
    8        Intellectual Property Notice  .........................   6
    9        Copyright Notice  .....................................   6






1. Introduction


   RFC 3032 defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL"
   and a reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL".  It states
   that these label values are only legal at the bottom of the MPLS
   label stack.  However, no reason is given for this restriction.


   It has turned out that in practice there are some situations in which
   it is useful to send MPLS packets which have Explicit NULL occur
   other than at that bottom of the label stack.  While the intended
   semantics are obvious enough, the fact that such packets are
   gratuitously declared by RFC 3032 to be illegal has made it difficult
   to handle these situations in an interoperable manner.


   This document updates RFC 3032 by removing the unnecessary
   restriction, so that the two aforementioned label values are legal
   anywhere in the label stack.



2. Detail of Change


   RFC 3032 states on page 4:


   There are several reserved label values:


       i. A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label".  This
          label value is only legal at the bottom of the label stack.
          It indicates that the label stack must be popped, and the
          forwarding of the packet must then be based on the IPv4
          header.




Rosen                                                           [Page 2]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004



     iii. A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label".  This
          label value is only legal at the bottom of the label stack.
          It indicates that the label stack must be popped, and the
          forwarding of the packet must then be based on the IPv6
          header.


   Paragraph i is hereby changed to read:


       i. A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label".


          An IPv4 Explicit NULL at the top of the label stack means that
          the stack must be popped.


          If the NULL was not the only label on the stack, this will
          cause the label beneath it to rise to the top of the stack.
          The disposition of the packet is based on the label that has
          now risen to the top.


          If, on the other hand, the NULL was the only label on the
          stack, then the stack is now empty.  The resulting packet is
          treated as an IPv4 packet, and its disposition is based on the
          IPv4 header.



   Paragraph iii is hereby changed to read:


     iii. A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label".


          An IPv6 Explicit NULL at the top of the label stack means that
          the stack must be popped.


          If the NULL was not the only label on the stack, this will
          cause the label beneath it to rise to the top of the stack.
          The disposition of the packet is based on the label that has
          now risen to the top.


          If, on the other hand, the NULL was the only label on the
          stack, then the stack is now empty.  The resulting packet is
          treated as an IPv6 packet, and its disposition is based on the
          IPv6 header.












Rosen                                                           [Page 3]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004



3. Reasons for Change


   Restricting Explicit NULL to the bottom of the stack has caused some
   problems in practice.


   With this restriction in place, one should not distribute, to a
   particular label distribution peer, a binding of Explicit NULL to a
   particular FEC, unless the following condition (call it "Condition
   L") holds:  all MPLS packets received by that peer with an incoming
   label corresponding to that FEC contain only a single label stack
   entry.  If Explicit NULL is bound to the FEC, but Condition L doesn't
   hold, the peer is being requested to create illegal packets.  None of
   the MPLS specifications say what the peer is actually supposed to do
   in this case.  This situation is made more troublesome by the facts
   that, in practice, Condition L rarely holds, and it is not possible
   in general to determine whether it holds or not.


   Further, if one is supporting the Pipe Model of RFC3270, there are
   good reasons to create label stacks in which Explicit NULL is at the
   top of the label stack, but a non-null label is at the bottom.


   RFC3270 specifies the procedures for MPLS support of Differentiated
   Services.  In particular, it defines a "Pipe Model", in which
   (quoting from RFC3270, section 2.6.2):


    "tunneled packets must convey two meaningful pieces of Diff-Serv
    information:


      - the Diff-Serv information which is meaningful to intermediate
        nodes along the LSP span including the LSP Egress (which we
        refer to as the 'LSP Diff-Serv Information').  This LSP Diff-
        Serv Information is not meaningful beyond the LSP Egress:
        Whether Traffic Conditioning at intermediate nodes on the LSP
        span affects the LSP Diff-Serv information or not, this updated
        Diff-Serv information is not considered meaningful beyond the
        LSP Egress and is ignored.


      - the Diff-Serv information which is meaningful beyond the LSP
        Egress (which we refer to as the 'Tunneled Diff-Serv
        Information').  This information is to be conveyed by the LSP
        Ingress to the LSP Egress.  This Diff-Serv information is not
        meaningful to the intermediate nodes on the LSP span."


    When the Pipe Model is in use, it is common practice for the LSP
    Egress to bind Explicit Null to the tunnel's FEC.  The intention is
    that the LSP Diff-Serv information will be carried in the EXP bits
    of the Explicit Null label stack entry, and the tunneled Diff-Serv
    information will be carried in whatever is "below" the Explicit Null




Rosen                                                           [Page 4]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004



    label stack entry, i.e., in the IP header DS bits or in the EXP bits
    of the next entry on the MPLS label stack.


    Naturally, this practice causes a problem if the Pipe Model LSP is
    being used to tunnel MPLS packets (i.e., if Condition L does not
    hold).  With strict adherence to RFCs 3031 and 3036, this practice
    results in an MPLS packet where Explicit NULL is at the top of the
    label stack, even though it is not the only entry in the label
    stack.  However, RFC 3032 makes this packet illegal.  Some
    implementations simply transmit the illegal packet.  Others try to
    convert it to a legal packet by stripping off the Explicit NULL
    before transmitting it.  However, that breaks the Pipe Model by
    discarding the LSP Diff-Serv information.


    Of course the LSP egress is not compelled to bind Explicit NULL to
    the tunnel's FEC; an ordinary label could be used instead.  However,
    using Explicit NULL enables the egress to determine immediately
    (i.e., without need for lookup in the Label Information Base) that
    the further forwarding of the packet is to be determined by whatever
    is below the label.  Avoiding this lookup can have favorable
    implications on forwarding performance.


    Removing the restriction that Explicit Null only occur at the bottom
    of the stack is the simplest way to facilitate the proper operation
    of the Pipe Model.



4. Acknowledgments


   Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal, Francois LeFaucheur, Yakov Rekhter, and Dan
   Tappan for their helpful comments.



5. Normative References


   [RFC3032] "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", Rosen, et. al., January 2001



6. Informative References


   [RFC3270] "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
   Differentiated Services", Le Faucheur, et. al., May 2002










Rosen                                                           [Page 5]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004



7. Author's Address



      Eric C. Rosen
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Avenue
      Boxborough, MA 01719
      Email: erosen@cisco.com





8. Intellectual Property Notice


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.


   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.



9. Copyright Notice


   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.


   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of




Rosen                                                           [Page 6]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-00.txt        March 2004



   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.


   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.


   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."






































Rosen                                                           [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/